Thread by @sophusticated

As an academic working on understanding & how to get the best possible nature outcomes for #Biodiversity #NetGain #BNG, let me share a major worry that I see barely discussed at all, & which unaddressed could decimate the biodiversity impacts: 'cost-shifting'. /1

Cost-shifting occurs when an offsetting / biodv compensation policy is introduced under the rationale that nature conservation is underfunded, so we need new private finance to make up the shortfall. So, we set up offsetting to charge developers for their biodv impacts. /2

Fundamental idea here is that offsetting provides funding that is *additional* ie would not have been provided before. So, it assumes that conservation funding post-introduction of offsetting = funding from government before + funding from private sector through offsetting. /3

Framed this way, offsetting is good, as it adds to the total conservation budget. In fact, in theory, offsetting should cancel out all of the negative impacts of development, so 'core' government cons funding can be used purely for improving biodv & not mitigating impacts /4

However. What if governments use this new revenue stream from the private sector as an argument to reduce their own conservation spending? In this case, total conservation spending might stay the same, just with less public, & more private, financing /5

This means that the offset funds are no longer *additional* ie they don't provide a source of funding that did not occur beforehand. This undermines a huge reason for introducing offsetting in the first place from a biodv perspective /6

Mind you, offsetting might still be better than no offsetting, but for another reason - it wouldn't be cos offsetting compensates for the impact of development - it would be cos offsetting disincentivises biodv impacts initially, like a 'sin-tax' (eg carbon tax) /7

We write about that here sciencedirect.com/science/articl…, as do others here sciencedirect.com/science/articl… /8

Cost-shifting is real. @DivyaNarain1 found it in the Indian system here conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…, @martine_maron @Ascelin discuss it here conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.111… Connors finds evidence in Australian Capital Territory here core.ac.uk/download/pdf/2… /9

Problem is, cost-shifting is hard to track, as it requires tracking opaque funding for conservation through the public sector over time. In the UK, this would probs manifest as changes in local authority nature conservation budgets. /10

So, a plea to those working in @NaturalEngland @DefraGovUK @LGAcomms @CIEEMnet @iemanet @CIWEM @RTPIPlanners: please track conservation spending, & track if finance from Net Gain adds to *or displaces* existing spending. /11

To regenerate England's wounded nature, we *need* more funding, which means increasing public conservation budgets AS WELL AS utilising the finance from the private sector. If Net Gain displaces rather than adding, then it would become mostly greenwashing overall. /fin